In response to:

Anatomy of a Flop: GOP "Cliff" Counter-Offer Fizzles

Jerry555 Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 7:45 PM
toucan talks about this BULLCRAP tax hike on the RICH. ALL GAME, Pure Politics. This 'little' tax hike, so touted by the Liberal Media and the Liberals, is equal to about $80 Billion, this is about 1/2 of 1% of the National Debt, or enough to run the Fed for about 5 days. This is 0.005, or 0.5% of the National Debt. NOTHING
AmyDB Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 7:50 PM
That's because this isn't about actual revenue. It's about "punishing" the _EVIL_ "rich"

Problem is the progressives can't define what "rich" actually _IS_.
Troglodite Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 7:55 PM
They can definite it, but prefer not to, at least not yet: If you have any money that was not a handout from the government, you are rich and should have it taxed away from you.
toucan1953 Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 8:04 PM
Anyone who makes over $250k can afford to pay more in taxes (which by the way includes my wife and I)
Troglodite Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 8:10 PM
t:
If you are going to be paying more in taxes, you are going to be doing less of something else. Are you entirely sure that what you are going to forego is not more useful to the country than the additional money that you will be sending the IRS?
toucan1953 Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 8:15 PM
If paying more in taxes means that an elderly person will be able to survive on SS - I will gladly pay more in taxes. If it means sending a young man or woman to school on a PELL grant - I will gladly pay more. If it means that everyone will have some kind of healthcare insurance - again, I will pay more. I think in terms of "we are all in this together"
Troglodite Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 8:29 PM
t:
The flip side. Someone who pays more in taxes may not be able to help out his own parents, or to send his own children to a decent private school, or to make provision for his own healthcare so that he does not become a burden to the community, etc. If we are "all in this together," is it really a good thing if we are commanded by those who, as we discussed below, abused credit as badly as our national political leadership has for about two generations now?
Chestertonfan Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 8:34 PM
That is how the argument is framed, it is not what happens in practice. My guess is that 25%, as a guess, of all government spending in Western Representative Democracies is simply wasted, not necessary for the protection of those in need or for defence. Whenever taxes are raised, it feels like it goes into a bureaucrat's pockets or to those hustling the system, both individuals and companies. They have to stop spending.
Troglodite Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 8:43 PM
C-fan:

The burden of government is HUGE. It may be worth looking up "cost of government day." It is not until August that the average American is finished working to pay taxes, regulatory costs, compliance costs, unfunded mandates, etc. Much of that goes into the pockets of a privileged "rentier" class: government employees, lawyers, accountants, consultants, lobbyists, administrators, etc. Not coincidentally, that same burden drives up labor costs and helps push manufacturing offshore.

Yesterday evening we reported the details of House Republicans' "fiscal cliff" compromise offer to the White House, which offered real ideological concessions, to the tune of $800 Billion in new revenues.  The plan -- originally conceived last year by the Democratic co-chairman of the debt commission, Erskine Bowles -- also calls for the reduction of both discretionary and mandatory spending, making needed (albeit small-ball) reforms to the largest drivers of our debt.  Unlike the president's risible, widely-panned proposal last week, Republicans' new negotiating posture offers genuine compromise: (a) It has bipartisan origins, (b) it achieves "balance," (c) it...